Chromaqueen
June 15, 2016 11:05 AM Subscribe
For her 90th birthday, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth selected a striking green outfit to attend the Trooping the Colour parade. A green outfit that lent itself perfectly to chromakey special effects. As always, Twitter was there to help out.
Queen on the Queen
Queen on the Queen
I feel like she would enjoy all of this.
posted by Rock Steady at 11:16 AM on June 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Rock Steady at 11:16 AM on June 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
That woman is the only thing preventing a Republic, and Charles' hands aren't strong enough to hold the tithe.
posted by Etrigan at 11:18 AM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 11:18 AM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
100 years ago they'd have had your head for this.
posted by bondcliff at 11:18 AM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by bondcliff at 11:18 AM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
100 years ago they'd have had your head for this.
Yes, and I think nowadays, she'd be tickled pink! Or blue! Or houndstooth!
posted by xingcat at 11:24 AM on June 15, 2016 [14 favorites]
Yes, and I think nowadays, she'd be tickled pink! Or blue! Or houndstooth!
posted by xingcat at 11:24 AM on June 15, 2016 [14 favorites]
100 years ago they'd have had your head for this.
If you've never done a Beefeater tour of the Tower Of London you're missing out on a lot of wisecracks about all the various ways people met their rather unfortunate ends.
posted by Annika Cicada at 11:30 AM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
If you've never done a Beefeater tour of the Tower Of London you're missing out on a lot of wisecracks about all the various ways people met their rather unfortunate ends.
posted by Annika Cicada at 11:30 AM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
According to the protester/comedian Mark Thomas, imagining the end of the monarchy, or encouraging a foreigner (but presumably not a British subject) to do so, is still a crime under the Treason Felony Act 1848 (or thenabouts). As such, there may still be laws that such an act of lèse-majesté would, in theory, be severely punishable under.
posted by acb at 11:30 AM on June 15, 2016
posted by acb at 11:30 AM on June 15, 2016
Did Prince Phillip in the bear hat scare anyone else? Just me? Carry on.
The Deathstar/Millenium Falcon one was my favorite.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 11:36 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
The Deathstar/Millenium Falcon one was my favorite.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 11:36 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
I liked the Riddler question marks. I think the Queen could do some crimes.
posted by GenjiandProust at 11:38 AM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 11:38 AM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
I love the kitty mean face. But I think the Sex Pistols is the wittiest.
posted by dness2 at 11:47 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dness2 at 11:47 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
She looks great in that color nd I think it's awesome that she'd wear something like that at 90.
I think it's more awesome that this was the collective reaction though.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 11:50 AM on June 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
I think it's more awesome that this was the collective reaction though.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 11:50 AM on June 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
Hand down, every Canadian law student's favourite criminal code entry is s. 49, "Acts intended to alarm Her Majesty." We are not quite sure what sorts of things might alarm Her Majesty, but I suspect some of these might be among them.
posted by jacquilynne at 11:53 AM on June 15, 2016 [22 favorites]
posted by jacquilynne at 11:53 AM on June 15, 2016 [22 favorites]
So if you alarm her inadvertently, you're in the clear?
posted by Kabanos at 12:01 PM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Kabanos at 12:01 PM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
One is amused.
posted by Zonker at 12:07 PM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Zonker at 12:07 PM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
The Word finally broadcasts from Buckingham Palace and Elizabeth becomes a psychedelic swirl while Inspiral Carpets play in the background.
posted by Emma May Smith at 12:11 PM on June 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Emma May Smith at 12:11 PM on June 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
When I am an old woman I shall wear doge.
posted by Mchelly at 12:34 PM on June 15, 2016 [34 favorites]
posted by Mchelly at 12:34 PM on June 15, 2016 [34 favorites]
Doge is back!
posted by Coda Tronca at 12:41 PM on June 15, 2016
posted by Coda Tronca at 12:41 PM on June 15, 2016
Not only she's green, but she gets excited by cows!
posted by elgilito at 12:50 PM on June 15, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by elgilito at 12:50 PM on June 15, 2016 [10 favorites]
This is brilliant.
My first thought was that she would look good in that thing Prince wore in the video for Raspberry Beret.
posted by dfm500 at 1:31 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
My first thought was that she would look good in that thing Prince wore in the video for Raspberry Beret.
posted by dfm500 at 1:31 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
The meteorologist one is the most meta.
posted by Rock Steady at 2:13 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Rock Steady at 2:13 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Clearly she did this just to spare Philip from everyone seeing what a dork he looks in that huge hat.
posted by chavenet at 2:36 PM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by chavenet at 2:36 PM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
100 years ago you'd be a wizard if you could pull this off with an IBM adding machine.
posted by museum of fire ants at 2:54 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by museum of fire ants at 2:54 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
The woman has made it to 90. So what if she wears green? Maybe it's her favorite color.
Once again, everybody and HIS dog thinks its their bizness to criticize what a woman wears.
posted by BlueHorse at 2:58 PM on June 15, 2016
Once again, everybody and HIS dog thinks its their bizness to criticize what a woman wears.
posted by BlueHorse at 2:58 PM on June 15, 2016
> So if you alarm her inadvertently, you're in the clear?
One is not alarmed.
posted by ardgedee at 3:00 PM on June 15, 2016
One is not alarmed.
posted by ardgedee at 3:00 PM on June 15, 2016
I get that this is funny, I really do, but the whole 'royals' thing turns my stomach too much to enjoy it as much as I should.
posted by signal at 3:18 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by signal at 3:18 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Her Maj wears bright colours like this green, bright pinks, blues, etc, for major public events and balcony appearances because the people who go to them want to be able to see her. Wearing bright colours makes her easier to spot, even when she's far away and surrounded by dudes in brightly coloured uniforms.
posted by jacquilynne at 3:30 PM on June 15, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by jacquilynne at 3:30 PM on June 15, 2016 [12 favorites]
Best comment on this I saw was "we get it, you like smoking weed"
posted by infinitewindow at 3:33 PM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by infinitewindow at 3:33 PM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
Well, I downloaded a picture, followed the instructions, and gave the queen a lovely paisley outfit. Thanks, Metafilter!
posted by acrasis at 3:36 PM on June 15, 2016
posted by acrasis at 3:36 PM on June 15, 2016
I get that this is funny, I really do, but the whole 'royals' thing turns my stomach too much to enjoy it as much as I should.
given the possibilities these are all alarmingly polite. I was expecting actual bollocks...
posted by ennui.bz at 4:15 PM on June 15, 2016
What is it with old ladies and this color? My mother had a storage unit built and painted that color in her basement a few years ago and still gets excited when she goes down there.
posted by ezust at 4:26 PM on June 15, 2016
posted by ezust at 4:26 PM on June 15, 2016
BlueHorse: "Once again, everybody and HIS dog thinks its their bizness to criticize what a woman wears."
We seem to be on a different Internet. I haven't seen anyone criticize what she wore.
posted by Bugbread at 4:32 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
We seem to be on a different Internet. I haven't seen anyone criticize what she wore.
posted by Bugbread at 4:32 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
The woman has made it to 90. So what if she wears green? Maybe it's her favorite color. Once again, everybody and HIS dog thinks its their bizness to criticize what a woman wears.Leave
posted by Nerd of the North at 5:19 PM on June 15, 2016
I could easily see common people wearing full motion video Star Wars shirts in 10 years, maybe less?
posted by ethansr at 6:40 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ethansr at 6:40 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
So if you alarm her inadvertently, you're in the clear?
So, I realize this is just a funny question, but we spent a solid two weeks on basically this question in first year Crim. Not related to s. 49 specifically, but in general the question of levels of intent and how strong the guilty mind / mens rea must be for a given crime.
The short answer is: yes, if you alarm her inadvertently, you're in the clear.
The longer answer, which is based on my recollection of something I studied a year and a half ago, so which is probably somewhat suspect:
What's interesting about the way the statute is worded is that it requires both that you wilfully do the act -- a high level of mens rea for the act itself -- and that your intention be to alarm Her Majesty -- which seems to limit this crime to acts where there is direct intent to cause alarm.
Normally, indirect intent is sufficient to meet a subjective intent. It's enough that you intended to do an act, and you know that the act is going to result in a particular harm. Even if your reason for doing the thing was something else, and the harm was just a side effect, if you knew the harm was going to happen, you are at least prima facie guilty of the crime. But in this case, it seems that you must actually have subjectively intended to alarm Her Majesty. It probably doesn't need to be your sole reason for doing the act, but it likely has to be a significant part of it.
So, you are hired to do the fireworks for the Queen's Birthday, and you set one off behind her and she is alarmed.
If you accidentally set one off, you are not guilty -- you did not wilfully do this thing.
If you didn't know she was there, you are not guilty -- if you didn't know she was there, you didn't wilfully do a thing to alarm her.
If you set it off deliberately, knowing the Queen was nearby, but it was a scheduled test shot for the later show, required for safety reasons, you are not guilty -- you didn't do it with the intent of alarming Her Majesty, that just happened. If you knew she was there, knew it was going to be a really loud bang would scare the shit out of people and did nothing to warn anyone, you'd be walking a hell of a fine line on that requirement for direct intent, though.
If you chose to set it off, because Her Majesty was walking by and you thought it would be funny to see her reaction, you are probably guilty -- you knew she was there, you did it deliberately and you intended to alarm her.
In an exam scenario, she would have then fallen down in a dead faint and hit her head, knocking loose an existing blood clot and causing a moderate stroke. While clearing the way to the hospital for the ambulance, her security service driver would have ignored traffic laws left and right, eventually hitting another vehicle and causing the death of the occupants. At the hospital, the surgeons would have ignored an advanced medical directive, performed a heroic yet tragically botched surgery that resulted in her death. You would then be tasked with determining which of those deaths the fireworks man was criminally responsible for.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:30 PM on June 15, 2016 [21 favorites]
So, I realize this is just a funny question, but we spent a solid two weeks on basically this question in first year Crim. Not related to s. 49 specifically, but in general the question of levels of intent and how strong the guilty mind / mens rea must be for a given crime.
The short answer is: yes, if you alarm her inadvertently, you're in the clear.
The longer answer, which is based on my recollection of something I studied a year and a half ago, so which is probably somewhat suspect:
What's interesting about the way the statute is worded is that it requires both that you wilfully do the act -- a high level of mens rea for the act itself -- and that your intention be to alarm Her Majesty -- which seems to limit this crime to acts where there is direct intent to cause alarm.
Normally, indirect intent is sufficient to meet a subjective intent. It's enough that you intended to do an act, and you know that the act is going to result in a particular harm. Even if your reason for doing the thing was something else, and the harm was just a side effect, if you knew the harm was going to happen, you are at least prima facie guilty of the crime. But in this case, it seems that you must actually have subjectively intended to alarm Her Majesty. It probably doesn't need to be your sole reason for doing the act, but it likely has to be a significant part of it.
So, you are hired to do the fireworks for the Queen's Birthday, and you set one off behind her and she is alarmed.
If you accidentally set one off, you are not guilty -- you did not wilfully do this thing.
If you didn't know she was there, you are not guilty -- if you didn't know she was there, you didn't wilfully do a thing to alarm her.
If you set it off deliberately, knowing the Queen was nearby, but it was a scheduled test shot for the later show, required for safety reasons, you are not guilty -- you didn't do it with the intent of alarming Her Majesty, that just happened. If you knew she was there, knew it was going to be a really loud bang would scare the shit out of people and did nothing to warn anyone, you'd be walking a hell of a fine line on that requirement for direct intent, though.
If you chose to set it off, because Her Majesty was walking by and you thought it would be funny to see her reaction, you are probably guilty -- you knew she was there, you did it deliberately and you intended to alarm her.
In an exam scenario, she would have then fallen down in a dead faint and hit her head, knocking loose an existing blood clot and causing a moderate stroke. While clearing the way to the hospital for the ambulance, her security service driver would have ignored traffic laws left and right, eventually hitting another vehicle and causing the death of the occupants. At the hospital, the surgeons would have ignored an advanced medical directive, performed a heroic yet tragically botched surgery that resulted in her death. You would then be tasked with determining which of those deaths the fireworks man was criminally responsible for.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:30 PM on June 15, 2016 [21 favorites]
No offence, jacquilynne, but I'm withdrawing my offer to do your fireworks.
posted by nfalkner at 12:10 AM on June 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by nfalkner at 12:10 AM on June 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
I have been singing every time I see this post:
Queenachrome, give us those nice bright colors
Give us the greeeeens of chromas
Make me think alllll the world's a sunny day, oh yeah
Also, flagged as fantastic, jacquilynne.
posted by fiercecupcake at 10:16 AM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Queenachrome, give us those nice bright colors
Give us the greeeeens of chromas
Make me think alllll the world's a sunny day, oh yeah
Also, flagged as fantastic, jacquilynne.
posted by fiercecupcake at 10:16 AM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
jacquilynne: "You would then be tasked with determining which of those deaths the fireworks man was criminally responsible for."
I believe the correct answer is that the pyrotechnician was his mother.
posted by Rock Steady at 10:52 AM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
I believe the correct answer is that the pyrotechnician was his mother.
posted by Rock Steady at 10:52 AM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
« Older Wiener-dog Wednesday! | Like it or not, all of our rights are intertwined. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Capt. Renault at 11:16 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]